More malevolence

In May 2008, a 15 year old Muslim girl tells her teacher she thinks she might be gay, and the Muslim teacher in a state-funded comprehensive tells her “there are no gays round here” and she will “burn in hell” if she ever acts on it. (I know because she emailed me, suicidal and begging for help). In September 2008, a young gay man called Oliver Hemsley, is walking home from the gay pub the George and Dragon when a gang of young Muslims stabs him eight times, in the back, in the lungs, and in his spinal column. In January 2010, when the thug who did it is convicted, a gang of thirty Muslims storms the George and Dragon in revenge and violently attacks everybody there.

Because why? Because of a stupid baseless prejudice. Because they eat their boiled eggs from the narrow end instead of the wide end, or is it the other way around. Because they like stripes better than checks. Because they like muesli better than shredded wheat. Because they watch football instead of tennis. Let them burn in hell!

4 Responses to “More malevolence”

And appeasers will argue that only a very few Islamic followers – the fundamentalists – cause violence and that most are peace-loving, reasonable people. Yeah, except the peace-loving Muslim majority insist on subjugating 50% of their people. Sickening, truly sickening.

As someone who once lost more blood than I had to start with, because persons unknown decided I was a “queer” (I was wearing riding kit) – I can only sympathise with the people suffering attacks from people with this pre-medieaval mind-set.

Same as the curreent case awaiting sentencing at Snaresbrook Crown Court at the moment, where a teacher was brutally attacked for “teaching other religions to our sisters”

There is a common category mistake abroad. It rests on the following blurred distinctions:

1. Those who are anti-Islam (ie find serious faults in Islam, both as a religious doctrine and as a philosophy of life) are therefore anti-Muslim, in the sense of being personally against all Muslims.

2. Those who are ‘anti-Muslim’ (ie who object to Muslim immigration; to Muslims as a community; to distinctive Muslim dress, social mores etc) are racist.

Against this I would say:

1. That it is my or anybody else’s perfect right in a free society to be overtly anti any religion, from the voicing of mild criticism all the way to openly despising it.

2. Being critical of a person’s beliefs in the manner described in (1) above does not necessaritly convey any attitude about the person themself. One is neither a fool nor a sage for having lived a life sheltered from philosophies and ideas divergent with those forming the mainstream of the consciousness manifested by one’s community.

3. Islam is not a race, neither are Muslims a racial group. Hence the racism line is a red herring and a diversion.

The story of the stabbing of the gay man by Muslims in full tribal overdrive is a most eloquent argument against allowing Sharia law to even get its little toe in the door.

“Because why? Because of a stupid baseless prejudice. Because they eat their boiled eggs from the narrow end instead of the wide end”

No, it is because they have allowed “religion”, in the cases quoted above a religion founded by a psychotic seventh century paedophile warlord, to prevent their development to reasonably enlightened social beings who might actually recognize their common humanity. The difference between them and their victims is not trivial, like which end of the egg to open, it is huge.